Two objects moving towards each other.

  • Thread starter Thread starter travis51
  • Start date Start date
travis51
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
So I am trying to understand some of the ideas of relativity but there is one thing i don't get. I understand that if one object were sent at .99 c and from that object another were launched at .99c the object would appear to be at .99c for the moving object but below the speed of light for an outside observer because time is just slowed down for the first bullet so it appears to be at .99c for the bullet but just below c and above .99c for and outside observer. The thing i do not understand is why if two objects were moving in opposite directions near the speed of light an observer on one of the objects would see the other going slower than the speed of light. Shouldn't it appear much faster because time is slowed in the fast object. Or does it have to do with the time dilation factor on the object. Also if object A and B were going at .99c towards each other why would an observer see it below the speed of light. I just want and explanation, no math or questioning the speed of the objects please because that is the easy way out.
I've heard that in the time, time would be slowed so much on the too intersecting that it would be impossible to measure, does this make sense? It sounds wrong to me, what if the same scenerio happened with two objects of speeds just above .5c
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
travis51 said:
Also if object A and B were going at .99c towards each other why would an observer see it below the speed of light. I just want and explanation, no math or questioning the speed of the objects please because that is the easy way out.
I've heard that in the time, time would be slowed so much on the too intersecting that it would be impossible to measure, does this make sense? It sounds wrong to me, what if the same scenerio happened with two objects of speeds just above .5c

If you were on Earth looking up at the two objects, you would see them approaching each other at far above the speed of light. Just below 2c I believe. The people on board due to time dilation, length contration and other distorting factors would measure things totally differently than you, and below light speed. Thats what their clocks and tape measures would show. Whats odd is you would both be correct!
 
abbott287 said:
If you were on Earth looking up at the two objects, you would see them approaching each other at far above the speed of light. Just below 2c I believe. The people on board due to time dilation, length contration and other distorting factors would measure things totally differently than you, and below light speed. Thats what their clocks and tape measures would show. Whats odd is you would both be correct!

If A is approaching me from the left at speed ##u## and B is approaching me from the right at speed ##v## (both speeds less than ##c##, of course), I will report that the distance between them is shrinking at the speed ##u+v##, just as you would expect. However, I'm not seeing anything moving faster than light; I'm seeing two things both moving at less than the speed of light.

A will report he is at rest, I'm moving towards him at speed ##u##, and B is moving towards him at speed:$$w=\frac{u+v}{1+\frac{uv}{c^2}}$$
Try plugging in some numbers and you'll see that this always comes out less than ##c##. This is the "relativistic velocity addition" formula, and googling for that phrase will find you much more information.

B will report that he is at rest, I'm moving towards him at speed ##v##, and A is moving towards him at the same speed ##w##, again calculated according to that formula.

Note that my motion is completely irrelevant as long we're careful about defining ##u## and ##v## as speeds relative to me.
 
So if object A and B are going towards each other at .99c and their is one stationary object, the stationary object will seem to be at .99c but object B traveling at .99c towards object A which is going the other way at .99c will seem to be only slightly faster because time is slowed significantly and the object only appears to be slightly faster because of this? Sounds kind of unassuring but makes some sense.
 
Nugatory said:
However, I'm not seeing anything moving faster than light; I'm seeing two things both moving at less than the speed of light.

But the objects are approaching each other at almost twice the speed of light from the middle persons frame of reference. So you CAN move two objects in certain ways faster than the speed of light, depending on your frame of reference. Away from each other or towards each other. (While neither object is actually exceeding c.)
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top